IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2174 OF 2024 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN:

1. KALEEM KHAN S/O-GHOUSE KHAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.37, BANAGARAGIRI NAGAR

2^ND CROSS, D.J.HALLI BENGALURU-45.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. NATARAJ .G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M. RAJA S/O LATE PANCHAMARIMUNIYAPPA @MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA R/AT NO. 555, 7^TH CROSS Location: HIGH PERIYAR NAGAR, BSA ROAD COURT OF KARNATAKA FRAZER TOWN POST, BENGALURU-5.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMAMURTHY .H.S, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.3637/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, C/C LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.3637/2015, wherein plaintiff’s suit seeking relief of declaration and possession is dismissed by the Court below.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff, tracing his title through a registered sale deed dated 24.10.2013 executed by one Azmathullah, has instituted the present suit alleging that defendant Nos.1 and 2, acting in collusion, have brought into existence false and fabricated documents. It is specifically alleged that defendant No.2, without any semblance of right, title or interest, has illegally encroached upon and occupied the schedule ‘B’ property. The plaintiff further avers that despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff calling upon defendant Nos.1 and 2 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule ‘B’ property, they have willfully refused to do so and, on the contrary, threatened the plaintiff with initiation of false criminal proceedings alleging life threat. Apprehending further complications and after seeking legal opinion, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking declaration of title and consequential relief of possession in respect of the schedule ‘B’ property.

4. Upon service of summons, defendant No.2 entered appearance and filed his written statement, stoutly denying all the averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.2, on the contrary, traced his title through his mother, late Chinnathayamma. It is contended that Chinnathayamma had acquired the property in question and had put up a residential house thereon and, upon her demise, the property devolved upon her legal heirs, namely defendant No.2, his sister Muniyamma (defendant No.1) and another sister, Smt. Lakshmi. Defendant No.2 asserts that all the three siblings were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Katha No.153, situated at Devarajeevanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which now falls within the limits of BBMP Ward No.48. It is further contended that defendant No.1 and the other sister Lakshmi have executed a registered release deed dated 12.03.2014 relinquishing their respective shares in favour of defendant No.2, thereby conferring absolute title upon him. On these grounds, defendant No.2 sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. The parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and produced eleven documents in support of his claim. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and relied upon fourteen documents.

6. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and placing significant reliance on the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1, answered Issue No